[address-policy-wg] 2007-01 review phase comments

Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> this discussion is starting a bit premature...

Ah, sorry....
[...]

> Independent of this, the ERX part will be moved to a separate policy
> proposal (see below).

Very good.

[...]

> The "missing" incentive for the resource holders could be, among others,
> better quality of the data in the RIPE database, and thus less hijacking, 
> less troubles with upstream routing, etc.

Those are pretty weak ones as all of this is working already, and routing
for ERX space in the general interest of the Internet, but

> - and in the long run, resource certificates, of course.

this sh|could be The Real Thing[TM].

There may be a couple of other handles, like management of reverse
delegation? This clearly is a service offered by the RIPE NCC, and with
cost involved.

> I agree that we cannot do that for ERX space, because this is space that
> was never handed out by the NCC, and no ties to the NCC exist.  So the 
> plan is to put up a separate policy proposal for ERX ("if you want 
> service from the NCC, like a resource certificate, the ERX space needs 
> to be changed to normal PI space, with all accompanying obligations").

Fully supported.

Although, at the same time, I am disappointed that we are still waiting
for the draft contract and the discussion of the type or the form of new
membership, like fees and voting rights?!

Which, by the way, also holds true for the "genuine" PI space part of the
game ;-)

> Gert Doering
>         -- APWG chair

Wilfried.